Posted on 01/15/2005 9:23:09 AM PST by ckilmer
Well, I got the impression the writer thinks throwing more government money at the problem represents progress. I guess for liberals that would be an acceptable definition. I didn't see any info on any real progress though. It's still 20 years in the future just like it was 20 years ago.
ping for later reading
energy independence bump
It seems that ITER is in it's stalemate between allies of France that Japan began to consider a partnership with US and few other countries from South East Asia as France considers to work with EU for this. Fusion reactor is not just an ideal system to provide electricity but also may be used to breakdown compounds of trash into atoms by the extremely high temperature. Breaking the bonds of compounds of trash into atoms, pure atoms could be obtained allowing recycle.
"1000-megawatt nuclear fusion plant would produce about 4 pounds of waste a day, compared to 31,000 tons from a coal-fired plant of a similar capacity"
31,000 tons per day?
cBS alert
I agree, but fission power is available today and the waste problem could be solved by any politician worth a d*mn.
I don't know what breakthru will give fusion the bumb it needs, but it will always be a problem to contain and to siphon off the extra energy we want it for.
yeah I know. it was curious how far in the future the scientist put the completion of the projects.
there are a couple of other approaches to fusion in process right now.
don't konw which one will work best but it does seem this one is heavily freighted with bureaucracies.
You apparently missed the statement and accompanying photograph that MIT has solved the plasma turbulence problem.
What goes in, must go out. 7000 to 9000 tons per day in, 7000 to 9000 tons waste (excluding a very small amount of mass to energy conversion E=MC2).
It's a lot cheaper just to light farts like the rest of did in college...
Also, calculation does not take into account
some of waste product is tritium, which is very hard to contain
and is a projected significant health threat from the fusion cycle economy
not to mention neutron activation issues in the wall of the fusion reactor
What the article fails to say:
Both the deuterium + deuterium reaction and the tritium + deuterium reaction are potent sources of neutrons.
Why is neutron production a concern? Neutron activation of materials in the reactor is one reason. However, the most important reason, those neutrons can be used for plutonium production. Would we want to sell a fusion reactor to Saddam Hussein, if he were still in power. Other questionable sales would include, North Korea, Syria, Iran, etc.
That deserves a sucking dry of the public fisc Bwah Hah Hah Hah Hah.
acoustic fusion might be the better way to go.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1321476/posts?page=2
How would it be solved?
Don't forget the weight of the oxygen in the output. I refuse to count CO2 or H2O, but some of the nastier stuff, like SO2 and nitrogen oxides do count.
That is how they probably got from 7k tons to 21k tons per day of waste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.